Would Europe have been able to fight the Mongols off if Rome had never fallen?

every time they did that they lost territory somewhere else, it's one of the many reasons the empire fell, because it didn't have the logistical capacity to hold everything it had at the same time. Furthermore if they lost that battle then it hurt the entire empire, not just whatever province the battle happened in. This is the advantage of separate states, because a loss to one state is not necessarily a loss to the others, damage only affects those in the area(besides migration and all that) and the other states can still hold firm. A smaller state can organize a defense for what they have, and if they lose it doesn't spread fear and discord across Europe like wildfire, as it would in the imperial system. I mean sure people are mentally affected, might think they're next, but ultimately they can always unite against a common threat when necessary without needing a bloated imperial system to support at all times and without feeling like a loss anywhere is a loss everywhere. The west basically became a series of smaller kingdoms because it was impossible for bureaucrats sent from constantinople to hold any real power so far away and because managing an empire that big inevitably meant inefficiencies at the micro level. Europe basically organized itself into more manageable and independent provinces because the imperial system had already proven itself unable to face the task at hand

>Nope
stopped reading there

>They'd just fucked up Poland and had a clear route into Western Europe
No, they wouldn't. Poland beat the mongols in the 3rd invasion and Hungary beat them too

Mongols would never get into Western Europe

They'd have bounced back.

they couldnt even fight off the goths

The Byzantines were Roman.

The Byzantines were cucks, they sided with Mongols and sent tribute.

Fart

no, they couldn't even fight the huns

This
>Be Roman
>Suck at cavalry.
>Pay scary nomads to go away.

I'd be incredibly interested to know what history books you've been reading that say the Romans didn't fight the Huns

You ucking retard

Did they join the Mongol Empire? I thought the Mongols demanded you join or be conquered.

Gee user, it's almost like societies change over time. By your logic the Empire of Septimus Severus isn't Roman either, because it had little in common with the Republic of Publius Decius Mus except for geography.

They didn't ally with the unified empire, just one of the successor hoards.

>The Byzantines were Roman.

nice meme

Can you back the claim that the Byzantines weren't Roman up with a academic peer-reviewed source?

>they called themselves Romaioi, or Romans. Modern historians agree with them only in part.
The term East Rome accurately described the political unit embracing the Eastern provinces of the old Roman Empire until 476, while there were yet two emperors.

>The same term may even be used until the last half of the 6th century, as long as men continued to act and think according to patterns not unlike those prevailing in an earlier Roman Empire. During those same centuries, nonetheless, there were changes so profound in their cumulative effect that after the 7th century state and society in the East differed markedly from their earlier forms. In an effort to recognize that distinction, historians traditionally have described the medieval empire as Byzantine

britannica.com/place/Byzantine-Empire

FAKE, ITS A DRILL KID

>implying Rome fell
Nice Latin letters you're typing with there.

Rome didn't die. Rome ascended.

Ascended to nonexistence.

No. The Mongols were almost unstoppable and Rome's pro-slavery and anti-technology attitude would have only held Europe back. Europe just got lucky that the current Khan died and his sons returned to fight over succession.

It ascended to the point where it became the default cultural expression for all of Europe. We now call the Roman Empire "Western Civilization".

They didn't fall out of use for quite a while in places they were effective. They are horribly ineffective in marshes, forests,and hilly/mountainous terrain.

But furthermore, one rider on one horse was more effective. They became particulary effective after advances in saddles and stirups and after larger horses were bred.

3. Europe got lucky and the Mongols left for unrelated reasons.
Yeah, those reasons being having utterly stalled in Hungary and sustaining serious losses for no gain against a total backwater.
>They'd just fucked up Poland and had a clear route into Western Europe.
They'd fucked a weak, technologically backward kingdom with friendly terrain and had a clear route into a more advanced land with far more men and fortifications inhabiting far worse terrain.

And they were still making zero progress on reducing the Hungarians castles.

It's like you don't know that the western and eastern legions routinely marched to aid each other in times of duress, or simply got shuffled form one place to the other.

They were preparing to leave before they could possibly have known of his death, and did not proceed directly home. Try again.

They're not very good when compared to cavalry, provided the cavalry can actually acquire horses strong enough to get the job done.

Chariots existed in war largely because the horses were too fucking weak to carry a man any distance. A pair could, and the chariot itself was initially very light. Heavier chariots come about with more-and stronger-horses.

The state doesn't exist anymore.

>2. Byzantines =/= True Rome

On the topic of byzantine/true rome, who exactly founded rome? Was it a greek colony conquering the latin tribes in the area, the latin tribes being influenced by the greeks or the two groups mixing?

I´m trying to research that and still have no clue.

They basically did that when they were fighting against Attila